ADUSAH v. ATTORNEY-GENERAL

JUDGMENT OF CHARLES CRABBE J.S.C.

Charles Crabbe J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court. The appellant in this case is invoking the jurisdiction of this court conferred by the provisions of article 198 (2) of the Constitution, 1979. He is appealing against the adverse findings of the committee established under the Committee of Inquiry (Recent Disturbances in the Police Force) Instrument, 1979 (E.I. 38). His complaint is against;

[p.231]

"(a) The decision recommending that the appellant should be prosecuted in the courts for the offence of corruption of a public officer.

(b) The finding that the conduct of the appellant in signing the vouchers was negligent and that it was the said negligent conduct which made the Winneba recruits fraud possible—a finding which completely ignored the explanations of the appellant.

(c) The decision recommending the premature retirement of the appellant."

The reliefs he seeks are:

"(a) All adverse findings, conclusions, decision and comments of the committee made by the committee against the appellant be set aside, reversed, overturned or disturbed and judgment be entered or delivered in favour of the appellant.

(b) The appellant be restored to his appropriate position in the Police Service."

Counsel for the appellant argued that the committee did not do its work as required by law. It was required to carry out an investigative inquiry. A cardinal principle of such an inquiry is the injunction to give a fair and an impartial hearing. The principle of audi alteram partem must be strictly adhered to. The Armed Forces Revolutionary Council in its Proclamation, 1979, had accepted the idea of the rule of law. There was, in fact, no hearing as required by law. This was so fundamental, such that its absence knocks the bottom off the inquiry. Therefore any finding would be null and void once that fundamental matter was in the favour of the appellant.

There were various findings. Allegations of bribery and corruption had been made involving ¢5,000. The appellant never had the opportunity to hear the evidence given to substantiate such allegations. He never had the opportunity to face his accusers. Indeed, there was no investigation at all. The committee itself did not have before it the evidence of the complainant. The committee called the appellant and asked him to explain about the ¢5,000. The appellant did not know whoever made the allegations. The complainant was not called to give evidence. Mr. Annan who made the